Questions about Freeh report
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Sunday, Feb. 17, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
I read Dejan Kovacevic's sports column “Kovacevic: The Paternos' sad, squeaky reply” (Feb. 11) regarding the Paterno family's report. I have some questions for him.
Why does he think Mr. Freeh is right about Mr. Paterno when he was so wrong in the fiascos of Waco, Ruby Ridge, Wen Ho Lee, Richard Jewell and numerous others? As Charles R. Smith wrote for Newsmax.com in 2002, Freeh “oversaw the longest run of FBI public disasters in its entire history.”
The Penn State trustees knew where to get the report they needed. Why didn't they conduct a thorough analysis of the Freeh report before accepting it? Why were they so anxious to put this behind them? What were the true motives of some trustees?
Why did the Penn State president accept the outrageous NCAA sanctions without question? Please don't tell me it was because he was worried about the “death penalty.” NCAA President Mark Emmert and NCAA Executive Committee Chair Ed Ray each gave different answers regarding the fact that the “death penalty” was on the table, and that has never been explained.
I would appreciate getting answers to these questions, which no one wants to address.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Knives vs. guns II
- Knives vs. guns I
- Resurrection? Yes, really
- Bloomberg & coal
- Tragedy sensationalized
- Consequences in space